MPs tell government to consult on formal regulation of McKenzie Friends

MPs have called on the government to consult on whether there should be formal regulation of McKenzie Friends, whether or not they charge fees.

In its report published yesterday, the justice select committee said it was concerned by increasing numbers of McKenzie Friends in the courts and said encouraging their use “may in some circumstances amount to a counsel of despair”.

MPs warned that individuals who “could not afford properly regulated legal advice and feel unable to adequately put their own case could find themselves disadvantaged if relying inappropriately on people without legal qualifications.”

In a highly critical report on the civil legal aid cuts contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), the committee said one of the results was that courts needed more funding to cope with the rise in litigants in person (LiPs).

Recommending that “some of the underspend from the civil legal aid budget” should be used for that purpose, MPs said concerns had also been raised during evidence sessions about services provided to LiPs by ‘professional’ McKenzie Friends.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, told the committee that paid McKenzie Friends, unlike lawyers, did not owe a duty to the court, and there was “no regulatory body at the moment to regulate them”.

Nicholas Lavender QC, former chairman of the Bar Council, and Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, highlighted the lack of redress if McKenzie Friends made mistakes, the danger of poor quality advice and lack of training.

However, Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, told the committee that McKenzie Friends were “an example of litigants in person moulding the legal services market around themselves”. The panel recommended self-regulation for McKenzie Friends, “echoing the Civil Justice Council’s view that there should be a code of conduct”.

Justice minister Shailesh Vara said the government was “looking at and monitoring” the issue of McKenzie Friends, but had no plans to introduce regulation.

The justice committee accepted that the “very wide range of roles undertaken by McKenzie friends presents challenges for any attempt at regulation”.

It pointed out that “regulation of McKenzie friends holding themselves out as quasi-legal advisors would protect the litigants they are advising but could be viewed as giving them an inappropriate level of authority”.

However, MPs said they were concerned by the growing numbers of McKenzie Friends in the courts and concluded: “We recommend the government consider and consult on whether there should be formal regulation of McKenzie friends who could be classed as engaging in professional activity, whether fee-charging or not.”

While accepting there was no “silver bullet” to deal with the complex problems raised by LiPs, the committee said it agreed with the Low Commission that a “comprehensive approach to legal information is absolutely crucial to ensuring litigants in person are able to represent themselves effectivelys”.

The committee added: “We recommend the development of a one-stop legal helpline able to divert inquirers to other services, whether online or over the telephone, or to assist with their inquiries.

“In particular, the helpline should be able to divert people to legal aid providers in cases where legal aid is available.

“This appears to us to be a cost-effective way to improve access to justice for litigants in person as well as being a significant step towards ensuring that people eligible for legal aid are able to access it.”

One Response to “MPs tell government to consult on formal regulation of McKenzie Friends”

I find it truly shocking, if not surprising, that none of this was foreseen by the architects of LASPO. At the very least, a one-stop shop of advice and support should have been set up before the cuts started to take hold. It just goes to show how incompetent the MoJ has become and how little it cares about the people who need to use the legal system.

Legal Futures Blog

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency – a digital currency that uses cryptographic techniques to regulate the generation of units and to verify the transfer of funds. It is largely anonymous and unregulated, and underpinned by a digital ledger technology known as blockchain. In terms of the market, there is a limit of 21m Bitcoin that can ever be created. It is very narrowly held, with an estimated 40% of Bitcoin held by just 1,000 ‘investors’ and only a third having been traded in the last year. However, there are also a number of synthetic products through which one can gain access to Bitcoin, including contracts for difference, ETFs (exchange-traded funds) and, as of December, exchange-traded futures.